V.Natarajan v. State Rep. by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court denied the prayer to quash the FIR. It held that exoneration in tax proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution for forgery and tax evasion. The Court directed the investigation agency to reconsider the petitioner's role in light of the appellate order.
What did the court decide?
The petition was closed but approved subject to directing the police to investigate the petitioner's role in light of the appellate order.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.No.10080 of 2016
1.V.Natarajan 2.C.Rajendran 3.C.Sumathi .. Petitioners Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBCID Head Quarters Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in Crime No.2 of 2015 on the file of the respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners :: Ms.C.Sangamithirai For Respondent :: Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed praying to quash the Crime No.2 of 2015 on the file of the respondentPolice. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
- On a complaint lodged by the Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Enforcement-I, Chennai-600 006, the respondent-Police have registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2015 dated 20.03.2015 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) I.P.C., against 13 persons, of which this petitioner, A.Natarajan has been arrayed as A13. The crux of the allegation in the FIR., is that Hanumanaram, the first accused had created bogus documents and furnished the same to the Commercial Tax Department for the purpose of evasion of tax.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order exonerating a petitioner in tax proceedings absolves them from criminal prosecution under sections for forgery and conspiracy.
Whether the facts of the case meet the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing the FIR.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
1.V.Natarajan 2.C.Rajendran 3.C.Sumathi
- respondent
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CBCID Head Quarters Egmore, Chennai
Coram
P.N.PRAKASH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court